Once saved always saved?

[Hammster]

And the chap who decides that a life of sin and degradation suits himself, having been saved ... what soil would be his case be like?

If he feels that way, he's not saved. See Romans 6.

 

[MoreCoffee]

If he feels that way, he's not saved. See Romans 6.

Is it easy to see who is and who is not among the saved?

 

[Hammster]

Is it easy to see who is and who is not among the saved?

Probably not.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Probably not.

Is it easy or is it difficult to know if one is one's self saved?

 

[Hammster]

Is it easy or is it difficult to know if one is one's self saved?

It's easy for those who trust in the finished work of Christ for salvation, and not their own behavior. They know that they can never be good enough. So they've entered into His rest.

 

[MoreCoffee]

It's easy for those who trust in the finished work of Christ for salvation, and not their own behavior. They know that they can never be good enough. So they've entered into His rest.

Does that mean that my friend only thought he was saved but didn't know it because when he was an evangelical he said he was saved. Was he wrong?

 

[Hammster]

Does that mean that my friend only thought he was saved but didn't know it because when he was an evangelical he said he was saved. Was he wrong?

How would I know what he believed?

 

[MoreCoffee]

How would I know what he believed?

He believed what the Westminster Confession of Faith summarises of the faith described in the bible; he was rather devout and very active in the Presbyterian church of which we were both members. But I see your point; neither you nor I can know exactly what he believed apart from what he said he believed and he could have been wrong in what he said.

But he still affirms that at the time he did in fact believe the gospel which he now regards as untrue.

 

[Hammster]

He believed what the Westminster Confession of Faith summarises of the faith described in the bible; he was rather devout and very active in the Presbyterian church of which we were both members. But I see your point; neither you nor I can know exactly what he believed apart from what he said he believed and he could have been wrong in what he said.

But he still affirms that at the time he did in fact believe the gospel which he now regards as untrue.

Then he obvious was not born again. Or the Good Shepherd dropped the ball on this one. Or the Father stopped loving His child.

I know which one I'm going with.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Then he obvious was not born again. Or the Good Shepherd dropped the ball on this one. Or the Father stopped loving His child.

I know which one I'm going with.

And if he at some time in the future returns to the faith that he used to confess as his own would that mean that he really was born again back then and merely has backslided for a time now? He says he really did believe the gospel, and he knows exactly what are the main points of the gospel message (as explained amongst evangelicals of the 'reformed' faith). Could you, for example, 'backslide' for a time?

 

[Hammster]

And if he at some time in the future returns to the faith that he used to confess as his own would that mean that he really was born again back then and merely has backslided for a time now? He says he really did believe the gospel, and he knows exactly what are the main points of the gospel message (as explained amongst evangelicals of the 'reformed' faith). Could you, for example, 'backslide' for a time?

I think there's a difference between backsliding (all saved people do that every time we sin) and rejecting God all out. And you conveniently keep missing my point. Jesus either is or is not a Good Shepherd. It's my contention that a Good Shepherd will not ever lose a sheep. I especially do not think He would lose one given to Him by His Father.

 

[psalms 91]

There is a difference between losing a sheep and a sheep deliberately rejecting the shephard

 

[Hammster]

There is a difference between losing a sheep and a sheep deliberately rejecting the shephard

I don't think so. The reason we are called sheep is that we are stupid, stubborn, and prone to wander. It's that very reason we need a shepherd.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I think there's a difference between backsliding (all saved people do that every time we sin) and rejecting God all out. And you conveniently keep missing my point. Jesus either is or is not a Good Shepherd. It's my contention that a Good Shepherd will not ever lose a sheep. I especially do not think He would lose one given to Him by His Father.

I never miss that point; the Lord Jesus Christ is without doubt the good shepherd and the Father without doubt always keeps his promises. That is a given that we both accept in faith.

What I am wondering is how folk like my friend can be so mistaken about their faith and folk like you can be so certain that folk like my friend were never born again. What makes it confusing is that you, for example, assert that you are amongst the saved and that my friend was not even when he was completely certain that he was. Somehow your certainty trumps his, despite your previous indication that you cannot not know what he believes (or believed when he was a professing Christian).


Adding to the wonder is the most recent assertions in your posts that my friend - should he repent and return to the faith - was not born again ... and all of these assertions made with complete certainty in your posts stem from the same texts in the same bible translations that he used when he was an evangelical christian as part of the basis for his own assurance of salvation. He said back then, and I know he said it because I heard his do so, that his assurance rested on the promises of God rather than on his own merits or his own faithfulness. It was, as your posts also imply, all down to God keeping his promises and Christ's work really effectually redeeming the faithful so that their sins - all those in the past, present, and future - are forgiven and totally purged away.

 

[Hammster]

I never miss that point; the Lord Jesus Christ is without doubt the good shepherd and the Father without doubt always keeps his promises. That is a given that we both accept in faith.

What I am wondering is how folk like my friend can be so mistaken about their faith and folk like you can be so certain that folk like my friend were never born again. What makes it confusing is that you, for example, assert that you are amongst the saved and that my friend was not even when he was completely certain that he was. Somehow your certainty trumps his, despite your previous indication that you cannot not know what he believes (or believed when he was a professing Christian).


Adding to the wonder is the most recent assertions in your posts that my friend - should he repent and return to the faith - was not born again ... and all of these assertions made with complete certainty in your posts stem from the same texts in the same bible translations that he used when he was an evangelical christian as part of the basis for his own assurance of salvation. He said back then, and I know he said it because I heard his do so, that his assurance rested on the promises of God rather than on his own merits or his own faithfulness. It was, as your posts also imply, all down to God keeping his promises and Christ's work really effectually redeeming the faithful so that their sins - all those in the past, present, and future - are forgiven and totally purged away.

So you didn't miss my point. Nice. Then there's nothing to discuss. Jesus doesn't lose His sheep.

 

[MoreCoffee]

So you didn't miss my point. Nice. Then there's nothing to discuss. Jesus doesn't lose His sheep.

Then my friend who was an evangelical and is now an atheist is still saved because he was redeemed according to the promises of God and consequently he was a sheep who the Lord Jesus Christ doesn't lose. A most reassuring message ... were it true.

 

[seekingsolace]

What I am wondering is how folk like my friend can be so mistaken about their faith and folk like you can be so certain that folk like my friend were never born again. What makes it confusing is that you, for example, assert that you are amongst the saved and that my friend was not even when he was completely certain that he was. Somehow your certainty trumps his, despite your previous indication that you cannot not know what he believes (or believed when he was a professing Christian)..

"They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us."

 

[Hammster]

Then my friend who was an evangelical and is now an atheist is still saved because he was redeemed according to the promises of God and consequently he was a sheep who the Lord Jesus Christ doesn't lose. A most reassuring message ... were it true.

Why should I assume he was saved and not just religious? Jesus said there will be those who look saved for awhile.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Why should I assume he was saved and not just religious? Jesus said there will be those who look saved for awhile.

For the same sorts of reasons that you assume that you're saved and not just religious.

 

[Hammster]

For the same sorts of reasons that you assume that you're saved and not just religious.

And why is that a concern of mine?